On Jan 25, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Doug Williams wrote:
> Well, I do use contracts for the vast majority of the code in the
> science collection. I think it's a good way to capture most of the
> constraints within real code. But, I still like being able to
> accept the consequences of not using it. And, if someone chooses
> to bypass it, the term "unchecked-" in the identifier is as good a
> clue as I know how to give. I'm open to suggestions.
Oh it is not your fault and there is little you can do.
It is all our fault. We should do much better for planet packages. We
proposed doing so two years ago, but nothing has happened.
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Doug Williams wrote:
>>> I also don't recommend calling the unchecked version of the code
>> unless you are TOTALLY willing to accept the consequences.
>>> I understand what you recommend but sadly, blame is primarily
> expressed by the error message. And if it says the error happened
> in your module, then the casual user will start debugging there.
> For all you know, the person who actually created the final product
> and is responsible for the unchecked calls isn't the user who
> discovers the bug. It's some innocent third-party client who bought
> the package for mega-bucks to run some Wall Street trading firm.
>> -- Matthias
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20080125/f40c0ce0/attachment.html>